Ccc Paragraph 841 (re Muslims)

[ICTHUS]

Ironmonk,

I do not see what Rom 2:12 or 1 Cor 9:19 has to do with the issue.

In theory, I could see the merit in 841, were it not for the fact that Christians worship a god who is triune and Muslims do not.

Christians affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, whereas Muslims only affirm the divinity of Allah (roughly analogous to God the Father). How, then, can they worship the same God?

I am not unreasonable, and I am willing to learn. I simply do not understand how this paragraph can be true, when the above statements (I'm assuming) are correct.

Also, can you cite a scholar who can say for certain that the name "allah" wasn't borrowed from an Arabian moon god worshipped on the Arabian peninsula prior to the Islamic conquest of this region, and that the Ka'abah is <i>not</i> was not, in fact, a shrine to this pagan deity before it became the shrine of Islam?

Part of my disgust at this paragraph, I am willing to admit, is the manner in which my Bishop preached on it at an interfaith service thingy - he basically made out that Muslims worship the same God and are therefore saved and going to Heaven.

On that note, I part.

God bless,

Ryan

Edited August 13, 2003 by ICTHUS

[ironmonk]

In theory, I could see the merit in 841, were it not for the fact that Christians worship a god who is triune and Muslims do not.

Christians affirm the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, whereas Muslims only affirm the divinity of Allah (roughly analogous to God the Father). How, then, can they worship the same God? 

The Muslims worship the same God we do. They do not know that God is Triune. Remember, man cannot change God. Just as the Jews do not know God is Triune, and they believe the same thing as the muslims do about Christ. There are people who call themselves Christians that deny the Trinity, they are mistaken... there is a big difference between different and mistaken. The muslims believe that they are to us, as we are to the Jews. Why do you think that the Muslims wanted all the Holy Places of the Christians...because they know them to be Holy, if they worshiped a different god, then the places would have no value.

Mohammed was Christian at a time, he wanted to be Christ like so much that he went into the desert for 40 days... being just a man, he hallucinated or it was satan posing as an angel of light.... He thought the angel Gabriel came down to him, maybe he got hungrey and ate some bad mushrooms, we don't know... we do know that they worship the same God we do.

Also, can you cite a scholar who can say for certain that the name "allah" wasn't borrowed from an Arabian moon god worshipped on the Arabian peninsula prior to the Islamic conquest of this region, and that the Ka'abah is <i>not</i> was not, in fact, a shrine to this pagan deity before it became the shrine of Islam?

"Allah" direct translation is "God". This sounds like you've been reading the moron david hunt. Similar things are said by anti-Catholics about Catholicism. There were many dialects of the arab people... The muslims worship the same God.

  Part of my disgust at this paragraph, I am willing to admit, is the manner in which my Bishop preached on it at an interfaith service thingy - he basically made out that Muslims worship the same God and are therefore saved and going to Heaven.

It's not your place to say they aren't going to Heaven. If someone belives that they are worshiping God the way God wants, and they show that the Law is Written on their hearts, then there is a chance that they will attain salvation. God loves everyone.

Just like all the American indians that lived in the Americas that had no way of ever knowing Christ, many of them could be in Heaven. Jesus died for everyone, even if peolpe don't know it.

It is not your place to judge and beaver dam all muslims to hell, because that is what you are doing. The Muslims worship the same God we do, they just do not know the full truth about God, and they have some things wrong.

If you are Catholic, you cannot deny what the Church teaches and still receive the Eucharist...

Here are some articles that you should read:

http://www.petersnet.net/browse/1039.htm

http://www.petersnet.net/browse/1058.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/MUSLIM.HTM

God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited August 13, 2003 by ironmonk

[Chrysologus]

Your literal interpretation of those scripture texts would mean that Jews don't worship God either. Yet, the Old Testament clearly says that they do. Why do you rely on your own interpretation of scripture over the church's? How smart do you think that you are? Don't you think Pope John Paul II, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, and all the other bishops who helped to write the Catechism know what they are doing? Didn't they go to seminaries for years to learn the scriptures and tradition? Or do you think that they are just being "politically correct" by saying that Muslims worship the one true God? Certainly they aren't, since no one who cares about political correctness reads the Catechism or listens to the pope, because Catholicism is very politically incorrect, regardless of what it says about Muslims. That said, let me close with this rather negative concession to you.

Muslims worship the one true God because they acknowledge him as the God of Abraham and Creator of the universe. This does not mean that their worship is acceptable to him through Jesus Christ, which is what those Bible verses you cited are about.

Please, please don't take the position of being a Catholic while defying some particular doctrine. A person who does that is not truly Catholic because he is not truly universal. To deny a Catholic doctrine is to deny the authority and competence of the magisterium of the church based on one's own feeble ability to interpret the scriptures, which are not a simple catechism of logically laid-out beliefs. The fact is, the Bible never mentions Muslims because there were no Muslims when the Bible is written.

[Chrysologus]

If the crusades were somehow taught infallibly as a matter of faith and morals, that would mean that they are dogma and "de fide," which would mean that their necessity was revealed by Christ. This is, of course, impossible, as the idea of crusades originated in the eleventh century and faded around the sixteenth. They were a papal undertaking, which by no means makes them dogma any more than World Youth Day is some sort of dogma.

[ironmonk]

If the crusades were somehow taught infallibly as a matter of faith and morals, that would mean that they are dogma and "de fide," which would mean that their necessity was revealed by Christ. This is, of course, impossible, as the idea of crusades originated in the eleventh century and faded around the sixteenth. They were a papal undertaking, which by no means makes them dogma any more than World Youth Day is some sort of dogma.

GREAT POINT!

God Bless,

ironmonk

Edited August 13, 2003 by ironmonk

[dabukthumpa]

I think this Catechism paragraph cites Lumen Gentium 16. Dealing with the Muslims. This is an interesting topic - and from reading on down the line - many times the question at hand was lost - and many other debates of interest fell on the plate.

The Second Vatican Council is an interesting Council - it is unlike any othe Ecumenical Council in that it makes no infallible declarations. Rather it presents its teachings in essay for which lead to many misinterpretations. Paul VI stated that Vatican II does not contain "extraordinary statements with a note of infallibility." This means that Vatican II does not contain any definitions of doctrine or specifically worded dogmatic canons, and therefore, it is not on the same level as other ecumenical councils. Vatican II's documents were written in lengthy essay form, not in canonical form. Because of this, Vatican II's documents often lend themselves to being diversely interpreted.

So how do we weigh Lumen Gentium's teachings on the Muslims- Well there is some problems here. Mostly it lies with good sound reasoning and logic.

How is it possible to say the Muslims "worship the one true God" - when they do not believe in the Trinity?

Jesus Christ gives us the fullness of God's Revelation in Himself? It is illogical to make the assertion that someone can worship something as true - when indeed they are not. Muslims do not profess the trinity! They may believe in monothiesm - but that does not make them worshippers of the One True Triune God as revealed to man through Jesus Christ. Vatican II makes the statement that "along with us" they worship the one true God - I have a hard time accepting this to be true. Do I think VII is heretical - no but I do think many things are left very anbigious - and these ambigious teachings need to be measured against good sound Authentic Teaching of the Church - Mainly againt the unchanging Deposit of the Faith as taught by Council and Popes.

The Council of Florence made it very clear Dogmatically What the true teachings are when it comes to those of other faiths. This is a bit long so I attached it to the reply ( you need to read the Papel bull before you continue with the reply - you will be interested in reading) If the attachment was too big to attach click onto www.catholicism.org/pages/florence.htm and read before you continue.

Pretty strong stuff, and as a Catholic I must believe that what this Council taught is TRUE!! This Bull meets all the requirements for infallibly taught Dogma - but one in looking at Vatican II has to measure some of these anbigious statements agains that Bedrock of Foundational teaching the Church has. Both Trent and Vatican I accepted and further proclaimed the solemn teachings of Florence. And in the Last Chapter of Lumen Gentium in dealing with Purgatory Vatican II also refers to the Council of Florence.

Ultimatley the anbigious statement in Lumen Gentium 16 - deals with the language of "the plan of salvation includes" also "the muslims" - well that is a no brainer! In 1Timithoy we see that "God desires all men to be saved" but that does not mean that all men will. The plan of Salvation includes everybody - but the gift of and graces of Salvation come only through Jesus Christ and Him alone - and as St. Paul tells us in the book of Ephesions - "which is His body the Church" This is why we have the Dogma!!! No Salvation Outside the Church.

Interestingly enough - the next section of Lumen Gentium deals with the Saving Mission of the Church - the Church is making it more clear that it is not enough to be just a good muslim and you will be saved - no rather it is making it clear that they too need the Church to be saved - and that until that Divine Command given by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Last Chapter of the Gospel of Matthew is met ( go therefore and baptize the nations - in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit) even the muslims salvation lies in great peril.

God bless - dabukthumpa

The_Council_of_Florence.doc

[Chrysologus]

www.catholicism.org contains writings of the excommunicated heretic Fr. Feeney and is not in communion with Rome.

[Chrysologus]

The great heresy of the traditionalists is failing to recognize culpability. God doesn't beaver dam someone who follows his conscience and leads a life of contrition, even if that person is unbaptized. God calls all to repentence though Jesus Christ, even people who've never heard of Jesus Christ or don't understand who he is. This can include Muslims and people of all faiths. If these people understood the necessity of the church and sacraments, they would request them immediately. This baptism of desire saves them.

[Don John of Austria]

If the crusades were somehow taught infallibly as a matter of faith and morals, that would mean that they are dogma and "de fide," which would mean that their necessity was revealed by Christ. This is, of course, impossible, as the idea of crusades originated in the eleventh century and faded around the sixteenth. They were a papal undertaking, which by no means makes them dogma any more than World Youth Day is some sort of dogma.

THis is rediculous by you definition The assumption of Mary would be no more dogma than world youth day, and they were a Couciler udertaking as was many a Dogmatic teaching that was not directly reveled by Christ, such as the Trinity, The Holy Spirit moves Councils and reveals through them, or yo denyng that?

[Don John of Austria]

"God doesn't beaver dam someone who follows his conscience and leads a life of contrition, even if that person is unbaptized. "

You don't know that the only Means of salvaton that we know of for sure is the Sacramental path of the Church. The Baptism of desire might save them. We trust in Gods mercy.

[Don John of Austria]

And war is not "faith and morals" it's discipline.

Please show me were you get this information, certianly the Church has always thought that war is a moral issue.\

By the way I never Siad that the Crusades were Dogmatic of even that they were individually infallable only that they were as binding as anything outr of VII.

[Don John of Austria]

Oh and Ironmonk I most certianly know what infidel means I was refering to it so that people realized that that was who was being spoken of.

And yes what ever you might think the Medieval desired the complete and total detruction of Mohommedism.

[ironmonk]

Oh and Ironmonk I most certianly know what infidel means I was refering to it so that people realized that that was who was being spoken of.

And yes what ever you might think the Medieval desired the complete and total detruction of Mohommedism.

Just as they did protestanism...

Not the people, but the teachings.... there is a difference.

The fact of this topic is that CCC 841 is not heretical, and the Muslims worship the same God we do; they have false teachings about God, but that is not the point.

The Church cannot teach heresy. The Church CANNOT be wrong. Every time I have heard someone say it is, after research it is clear, the Church has ALWAYS been correct.

ANYONE who thinks the Catholic Church is teaching something wrong on faith or morals, should NOT partake in the Eucharist.

Faith teaching examples: Trinity, Real Pressence, Mary, Saints, Confession, etc...

Moral teaching examples: no pre-marital sex, do not kill, love one another, don't lie, etc...

Discipline teaching examples: bow before receiving the Eucharist, vow of celebacy for priets, punishment, war, etc...

God Bless,

ironmonk

[Winchester]

If the crusades were somehow taught infallibly as a matter of faith and morals,

The Crusades themselves, as military undertakings were not infallible. The notion of pursuing a crusade being moral was stated in council. That does not by any stretch of the imagination condone abuses by Christians during the crusades, which managed to beat back a violent mititaristic religion which threatened to destroy Christendom, thus saving it for the Christians to virtually destroy themselves.

The religion of Mohhamed was quite bent on our demise, in action if not in written theology.

[Chrysologus]

THis is rediculous by you definition The assumption of Mary would be no more dogma than world youth day, and they were a Couciler udertaking as was many a Dogmatic teaching that was not directly reveled by Christ, such as the Trinity

I don't see how my statement was ridiculous. The Assumption of Mary was revealed before the apostolic age ended. It has always been believed by the church and was stated dogmatically by the pope in the 20th century. The idea of crusades, however, is not part of public revelation and not always practiced by the church. For that matter, crusades are a thing, not a doctrine, so can't be infallibly taught or anything, as that doesn't make any sense.

The Holy Spirit moves Councils and reveals through them, or yo denyng that?

Maybe I misunderstand what you're trying to say here, but nothing is revealed to the world in councils. Councils only state, elaborate on, proclaim, and defend what has already been revealed. All public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.

You don't know that the only Means of salvaton that we know of for sure is the Sacramental path of the Church. The Baptism of desire might save them. We trust in Gods mercy.

I disagree. It's my understanding that the baptism of desire is part of the church's sacred tradition. It is a doctrine that has been taught by the church fathers and has been especially emphasized by the modern magisterium. It must be believed by all Catholics, though I don't believe that it's ever been proclaimed dogmatically.

Please show me were you get this information, certianly the Church has always thought that war is a moral issue.

Certainly war and its justification is a moral issue, but the church proclaiming a war is entirely different. The church is not a political or governmental institution, it's a religious and moral one. It just happens that religion and morality forbid certain types of politics and government.

By the way I never Siad that the Crusades were Dogmatic of even that they were individually infallable only that they were as binding as anything out of VII.

Well, then that's different. But the crusades are over now, so I don't think that Catholics have any obligation to think anything particular about them. By their very nature, the crusades can't be considered doctrine, because doctrine is eternal, but the crusades were limited in time. The church may have enforced crusades in the past, but she doesn't anymore, so no Catholic today is obliged to believe or do anything about them. This is just my opinion, and I haven't researched the matter very much, but I don't know of any modern church documents on the crusades. If I could find some, I would read them.

The church is ever-young and there's no need to rely exclusively on her past documents and disciplines as you seem to do. The church today is just as useful, if not more so than she has ever been. Talking about the crusades or what Catholics used to think of Muslims seems rather pointless to me. In fact, Vatican II explicitely stated that Christians should forget our troubled history with the Muslims and look to a more peaceful relation with them in the future. I choose to understand the church's past in light of her present, not the other way around. I care much more what Vatican II had to say than what Lyons II had to say, in so far as we aren't dealing with dogmatic canons.